Predictive engine for generating multivariate predictive responses

ABSTRACT

A predictive engine includes an optimizer and a predictor. The optimizer is configured to receive an observed dataset having inputs and multivariate responses and determine latent response variables based on the predictive inputs and the multivariate responses. The optimizer is further configured to select latent response variables, measure dependencies between multivariate responses, estimate coefficients that relate the input predictors to determined latent response variables, and correlate dependencies and coefficients with the latent response variables. The predictor is configured to generate a predictive distribution of probabilities for the latent variables, map the probabilities to multivariate responses, generate a predictive distribution of probabilities for the multivariate responses, and determine at least one optimized input from the multivariate responses.

TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE

The present disclosure relates, in general, to Bayesian multivariateresponse optimization methods and, in particular, to a predictive enginefor efficiently generating optimal multivariate binary and categoricalpredictive responses.

BACKGROUND

Response optimization methodology encompasses various statisticaltechniques that are commonly applied, after conducting one or moreexperiments, to build models for predicting a single or multiple outcomevariables. A typical example might be the optimization of yield for achemical process for which prediction models have been built based onone or more experiments. These experiments may have evaluated differentinput settings of temperature, pressure, ethanol concentrates and otherinputs into the process. The optimization-of-outputs problem based onprediction functions determined through experimentation or statisticalmodeling of sampled data is not limited to the manufacturing domain:Rather, this is generally an important step whenever prediction modelsare to be used in order to change the inputs to a process to achieveoptimal results. This general problem may occur in any domain, e.g.,without limitation, education (e.g., evaluating different teachingstrategies or supporting educational materials), healthcare (e.g.,identifying the best combination of drugs and other treatment options tobring about desirable health improvements with minimum side effects),marketing (e.g., evaluating different types of incentives and discountson propensity to purchase specific services), and elsewhere.

A common problem is to optimize multiple outputs simultaneously based onthe same inputs. While the optimization of single outputs (responsesurface optimization) is widely described in Engineering Statistics textbooks, in most real world scenarios multiple outputs or measures ofquality that depend on the same inputs must be simultaneously optimized.One solution to this multivariate output optimization problem that hasbeen widely described in the Engineering literature is ResponseProfiling (Derringer, G., & Suich, R., 1980. Simultaneous optimizationof several response variables. Journal of Quality Technology, 12,214-219). In that solution, a simple arbitrary (based ondomain/engineering expertise) combination of outputs that is deemed“desirable” is defined a-priori, and then optimized as a singleunivariate outcome using traditional response surface optimizationmethodology. However, response optimization only provides a crude andlikely often inaccurate approximation of real-world dependencies amonginputs and outputs of a process.

For example, multivariate outputs are highly dependent on each other andhence it is important to consider their correlation structure whenperforming the optimization. Also, traditional optimization methodscannot provide any certainty nor confidence (probability) estimates thatdescribe how often the presumed “optimal” settings of inputs can in factbe expected to yield the desired optimized output values.

Peterson, J. J. (2004) “A posterior predictive approach to multipleresponse surface optimization” Journal of Quality Technology 36 139(2004) introduced Bayesian optimization methods applied to certain typesof continuous-only multivariate outcome problems. Bayesian optimizationmethods take into account the fact that in practice most outcomes ofinterest are correlated, and provide a way for a statement of confidenceor probability to be derived regarding the expected outputs givenoptimized inputs. In addition, the application of certain Bayesianoptimization methods on multivariate outcome problems can becomputationally complex and expensive. For example, the Bayesianlogistic regression model require the use of unknown probabilityfunctions, which in practice are computationally inefficient orimpossible, and potentially very expensive. Moreover, this approach isnot guaranteed to converge to an optimized solution, because the variousnecessary approximations during the computational process depend on themanual tuning of multiple underlying parameters.

SUMMARY

The present disclosure describes a predictive engine configured toefficiently optimize multivariate responses and determine an optimalinput based on the optimized multivariate responses and a desiredoutput.

In one aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a predictive enginefor generating optimized multivariate responses, the optimizedpredictive engine comprising: an optimizer configured to receive anobserved dataset having inputs and multivariate responses and determinelatent response variables based on the inputs and the multivariateresponses; and a predictor configured to generate a predictivedistribution of probabilities for the latent variables, map theprobabilities to multivariate responses, generate a predictivedistribution of probabilities for the multivariate responses, anddetermine at least one optimized input from the multivariate responses.

In some embodiments, the optimizer is further configured to selectlatent response variables, measure dependencies between multivariateresponses, estimate coefficients that relate the input predictors todetermined latent response variables, and correlate dependencies andcoefficients with the latent response variables. The dependencies aremeasured by creating a covariance matrix. The dependencies andcoefficients are correlated with the latent response variables usingjoint posterior density distribution. In some embodiments, the optimizeris further configured to (i) initialize a latent response variablevector with respect to an input predictor and multivariate responsevector, (ii) measure dependency between a latent response variable and amultivariate response, (iii) estimate a coefficient that relates aninput predictor to the latent response variable, (iv) correlate thedependency measure and the estimate coefficient with the latent responsevariable, and (v) select a latent response variable. The dependencymeasure and the estimate coefficient is correlated with the latentvariable using a joint posterior density distribution. The predictiveengine repeats steps (ii)-(v) until convergence. The multivariateresponses are one of multivariate binary responses and multivariatecategorical responses. The predictive distribution is a posteriorpredictive distribution. The probabilities are mapped to themultivariate responses by generating a conditional distribution.

In another aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a method forgenerating optimized multivariate responses. The method receiving anobserved dataset having inputs and multivariate responses; determininglatent response variables based on the inputs and the multivariateresponses; generating a predictive distribution of probabilities for thelatent variables; mapping the probabilities to multivariate responses,generate a predictive distribution of probabilities for the multivariateresponses; and determining at least one optimized input from themultivariate responses.

The method can also include selecting latent response variables;measuring dependencies between multivariate responses; estimatingcoefficients that relate the input predictors to determined latentresponse variables; and correlating dependencies and coefficients withthe latent response variables. The method can further include (i)initializing a latent response variable vector with respect to an inputpredictor and multivariate response vector; (ii) measuring dependencybetween a latent response variable and a multivariate response; (iii)estimating a coefficient that relates an input predictor to the latentresponse variable; (iv) correlating the dependency measure and theestimate coefficient with the latent response variable; and (v)selecting a latent response variable. The method also include repeatingsteps (ii)-(v) until convergence.

In a further aspect, the present disclosure is directed tonon-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a set ofcomputer instructions executable by a processor for generating optimizedmultivariate responses. The computer instructions are configured toreceive an observed dataset having inputs and multivariate responses;determine latent response variables based on the inputs and themultivariate responses; generate a predictive distribution ofprobabilities for the latent variables; map the probabilities tomultivariate responses, generate a predictive distribution ofprobabilities for the multivariate responses; and determine at least oneoptimized input from the multivariate responses.

Additional computer instructions can be configured to select latentresponse variables; measure dependencies between multivariate responses;estimate coefficients that relate the input predictors to determinedlatent response variables; and correlate dependencies and coefficientswith the latent response variables. Additional computer instructions canbe configured to (i) initialize a latent response variable vector withrespect to an input predictor and multivariate response vector; (ii)measure dependency between a latent response variable and a multivariateresponse; (iii) estimate a coefficient that relates an input predictorto the latent response variable; (iv) correlate the dependency measureand the estimate coefficient with the latent response variable; and (v)select a latent response variable. The multivariate responses are one ofmultivariate binary responses and multivariate categorical responses.

Additional embodiments, advantages, and novel features are set forth inthe detailed description.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a more complete understanding of the features and advantages of thepresent disclosure, reference is now made to the detailed descriptionalong with the accompanying figures in which corresponding numerals inthe different figures refer to corresponding parts and in which:

FIG. 1 is an illustration of a block diagram of a predictive engine, inaccordance with certain example embodiments;

FIG. 2A is an illustration of a is a flow diagram of an algorithm for anoptimizer of predictive engine, in accordance with certain exampleembodiments;

FIG. 2B is a flow diagram of an algorithm for a predictor of thepredictive engine, in accordance with certain example embodiments;

FIG. 3A illustrates a table that includes posterior means of the modelcoefficients (with Geweke Statistics) for a first scenario, inaccordance with certain example embodiments;

FIG. 3B-1 and FIG. 3B-2 illustrate autocorrelation plots for the MCMCsamples generated from the posterior distributions of the modelcoefficients, in accordance with certain example embodiments;

FIG. 4A illustrates a table of true values for the model coefficients inB, in accordance with certain example embodiments;

FIG. 4B illustrates partial autocorrelation plots for MCMC samples ofthe intercept and the main effects for an output, y₁, in accordance withcertain example embodiments;

FIG. 4C illustrates the posterior mean for the model coefficients alongwith the Geweke summary Z-scores for convergence diagnostics, inaccordance with certain example embodiments;

FIG. 5A illustrates partial autocorrelation plots for MCMC samples ofthe intercept and the main effects corresponding to output, y₁, inaccordance with certain example embodiments;

FIG. 5B-1 and FIG. 5B-2 illustrate probability plots for the targetresponse region over the domain of a covariate pairs when othercovariates are set to their optimized values, in accordance with certainexample embodiments;

FIG. 5C illustrates a table of posterior estimates of the modelcoefficients, in accordance with certain example embodiments; and

FIG. 6 is a block diagram depicting a computing machine and systemapplications, in accordance to certain example embodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

While the making and using of various embodiments of the presentdisclosure are discussed in detail below, it should be appreciated thatthe present disclosure provides many applicable inventive concepts,which can be embodied in a wide variety of specific contexts. Thespecific embodiments discussed herein are merely illustrative and do notdelimit the scope of the present disclosure. In the interest of clarity,not all features of an actual implementation may be described in thepresent disclosure. It will of course be appreciated that in thedevelopment of any such actual embodiment, numerousimplementation-specific decisions must be made to achieve thedeveloper's specific goals, such as compliance with system-related andbusiness-related constraints, which will vary from one implementation toanother. Moreover, it will be appreciated that such a development effortmight be complex and time-consuming but would be a routine undertakingfor those of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of thisdisclosure.

Peterson's (2004) approach is limited to continuous outcomes only, andno equivalent approach, computer system, or methodology exists thatsolves the more general problem of multiple categorical outcomes.Suppose in a medical application and experiment, different patients wereadministered different dosages of multiple drugs (inputs) to determinethe optimal combination of dosages for different drugs that willminimize the risk of side effects (e.g., rashes; yes or no), fever (yesor no) while maximizing the expected pain relief (no pain, pain reduced,pain not reduced), and so on. This type of problem involving discreteoutcomes are frequently observed across many different domains includingbut not limited to psychometric testing, chemical processes or drugdevelopment, general manufacturing, marketing, etc. In all cases thegoal is to optimize probabilities for different ordered categoricaloutputs, based on a set of common inputs and the prediction functionsthat connect the outputs to the combination of values of the inputs.

To continue the medical-application example, the goal could be toidentify the specific dosages for different drugs for a givendiagnosis/disease to achieve optimal improvements of different symptomswhile minimizing the probability of different side effects. For thereasons outlined previously, the traditional statistical techniques tosolve such problems are either not applicable, nor can generate thedesired and often required statements of confidence and risk for theoptimized solution. Peterson's specific limited Bayesian optimizationapproach is only applicable for continuous outputs, so, that also fallsshort when trying to solve the common (across multiple domains)optimization problem for multiple ordered categorical outputs.

A typical non Bayesian solution specifically to the modeling and thenoptimization of models for categorical outputs is to apply certaintransformations (such as the Arcsine transformation) to the respectiveproportions for each category for each output. Those transformations aimto approximate continuous variables that represent and “normalize” (turninto random-normal-variables) the underlying proportions. Theseapproximations were proposed by statisticians in the 1950's, but aregenerally considered inappropriate in situations when underlyingproportions are close to 0.0 or 1.0. Moreover, the problem of multiplecategorical outputs is not solved, and how to optimize prediction modelsfor such outputs based on common inputs.

Another theoretically possible solution to the optimization problem formultiple categorical outputs could also be derived from Bayesianlogistic regression techniques. However, in practice this generalapproach is not feasible nor practical because of statistical andcomputational complexities and cost: The Bayesian logistic regressionmodel requires to induces unknown probability functions that need to beapproximated, which in practice is computationally inefficient orimpossible, and potentially very expensive. Moreover, this approach isnot guaranteed to converge to an optimized solution, because the variousnecessary approximations during the computational process depend on themanual tuning of multiple underlying parameters. For these reasons, thisapproach is not suitable to serve as the basic mathematical model tosupport a system and method for optimization of categorical outputs asdescribed in this disclosure.

In various embodiments presented herein, Bayesian optimization ofmultiple categorical outcomes is performed based on a system ofprediction models involving common inputs. This type of optimizationproblem occurs frequently in a wide variety of domains and industries.In various embodiments, known Bayesian methodologies and innovative dataprocessing steps are combined to create an optimized representation ofthe categorical outputs through auxiliary latent intermediate continuousoutputs.

In some embodiments, a Bayesian approach is used to treat an underlyingprediction model as a classification problem, and then to iterativelygenerate an optimized representation of the categorical outputs over acontinuous and separated (not overlapped) hyperplane. In this context,the data processing step that is disclosed involves the generation ofauxiliary latent continuous outputs which are then used in Bayesianoptimization following procedures that are similar to those proposed byPeterson. In addition, several heretofore unknown specific processingsteps are disclosed, which when combined with other steps as disclosedherein enable the optimization of multiple categorical outputs—each withmultiple categories—based on prediction models involving common inputs.

In various embodiments, techniques disclosed herein are implementedefficiently in a computer system as a number of consecutive dataprocessing steps. Thus, optimization is achieved even in situationswhere there are many categorical outputs and models, and many categoriesfor each output. Additional advantages of techniques disclosed herein,in various embodiments, include that the dependence among thecategorical outputs is taken into consideration, and statements ofprobability and confidence may be derived regarding the expectedoutcomes given the optimized inputs. In various embodiments, morerealistic and accurate predictions are created, and users are informedof the confidence probabilities associated with specific optimizationresults.

In general, the Bayesian reliability optimization described herein canbe used to find the optimal set of inputs to maximize the probability ofthe desired output. This extends the already existing approach byPeterson (2004) where the optimal set of inputs for a set of continuousresponses are found. Finding a set of optimal inputs that yield adesired set of outputs is not new, but Peterson's approach had theadvantage over the traditional frequentist approach by (1.)incorporating the dependencies among the multiple responses, and (2.)providing a statement of confidence or probability regarding theexpected outputs given optimized inputs. The disclosed approachpresented herein applies these advantages to data with multiple orderedcategorical outputs.

A predictive engine, method, and computer program product used invarious embodiments to apply Bayesian optimization to optimize multiplecategorical outputs is presented. It is able to optimize multipleordered categorical outputs without ignoring the dependence among theoutputs. It solves the optimization problem and provides uncertaintyestimates (probabilities) of how likely the optimized input values willfail to generate the optimized outputs. It can be implementedefficiently as a set of computer instructions that can optimize themultiple categorical outputs based on prediction models involvingmultiple common inputs.

The underlying optimization induces known forms of probability modelswhich make the disclosed method computationally efficient; even largeoptimization problems involving many categorical outputs with manycategories can be solved using the methods presented herein, andsolutions to problems can be derived that heretofore could not beaddressed by any known system or method.

In a typical situation, an analyst may have data with multiple orderedcategorical responses (or binary in which case there does not have to bean ordering present in the response) with a set of categorical and/orcontinuous predictors. For example, suppose in a medical application andexperiment, different patients were administered different dosages ofmultiple drugs (inputs/predictors) to determine the optimal combinationto minimize side effects e.g. rashes (yes/no), fever (yes/no), andmaximize pain relief (no pain, pain reduced, pain not reduced). In thisexample, a partial listing of the data table might look like thefollowing:

Rashes Fever Pain relief Drug 1 Drug 2 . . . Drug k No No Pain reduced2,000 mg 150 mg . . . 100 mg Yes No No pain 4,000 mg 150 mg . . . 100 mg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Yes No pain 2,000 mg 200mg . . . 300 mg

The first three columns represent the categorical responses or outputs.The final k columns display the predictors or inputs. For this example,the methods presented herein can be used to find the optimal set ofinputs such that the probability of no rashes, no fever, and no pain ismaximized and perform the optimization in a much more computationallyefficient manner than previous approaches.

The categorical outputs can be modeled via latent continuous variables.The data can be transformed into a form suitable for the Bayesianapproach put forth by Peterson. In other words, the problem can betransformed from one of categorical responses to a set of latent,continuous variables. The predictive engine is flexible and the modelingdetails can be filled in as desired. However, in further detail beloware examples of concrete implementations, which illustrates how onemight go about modeling the binary or categorical response (output)variables with latent continuous variables. The latent continuousvariables can be modeled using Bayesian linear regression techniques.See paragraphs [0055]-[0072] for a more technical details. A function ofthe algorithms presented herein is the ability to be used withmultivariate ordered categorical outputs. In the case of binary outputs,there is no real consequence of coding one category as “0” and anotheras “1.” The range of the latent variable is simply divided into twohalves. For multivariate ordered categorical outputs with more than twolevels, the levels are ordered thus the mapping can now divide the rangeinto three equiprobable intervals. See paragraph [0087] for a moretechnical details.

Referring now to FIG. 1, illustrated is a block diagram of a predictiveengine, according to certain example embodiments, denoted generally as100. In the embodiment, an observed dataset that includes sets ofinputs, set of outputs (binary or categorical), and a desirable outputor outputs can be provided. The observed dataset can include data fromone or more experiments and can have also been previously optimizedusing another predictive algorithm. The predictive engine 100 functionsefficiently and effectively to process and predict the optimal input orinputs for a desired output or outputs.

The predictive engine 100 includes an optimizer 102 and a predictor 104for determining a set of optimal inputs 106 in order to achieve adesirable output 108. In this embodiment, to determine a set of optimalinputs 106 to achieve a desirable output 104, a set of observedmultivariate categorical outputs 110, or multivariate binary outputs, issampled and iteratively optimized to generate a multivariate continuousauxiliary output, at the optimizer 102. At the predictor 104, Bayesianoptimization can be applied to the multivariate continuous auxiliaryoutput to generate predictive probabilities, i.e. confidence ratings,for the auxiliary output. The MCMC acronym stands for Markov Chain MonteCarlo and can approximate the probability of desired output given someset of inputs, that is, P(y∈A|x). I.e., the determination which is beingmade outside of the MCMC is the optimal input which maximizes theprobability of the desired output. A posterior prediction distributionfunction can be used to approximate probabilities. A conditional modelcan be used to generate categorical outputs from the given distributionof probabilities for the latent variables. The predictor 104 can thengenerate the predictive probabilities for the categorical outputs sothat the optimal input, or inputs, for a desired output, or outputs, canbe determined. In other words, P(y∈A|x) can then be approximated bysampling enough times to determine the categorical outputs. At thispoint, a generic numerical optimization algorithm can be implemented,e.g. some variant of Newton's method, grid search, etc., to search forthe optimal input.

Referring now to FIG. 2A, illustrated is a flow diagram of an algorithmfor the optimizer 102 of predictive engine 100, according to certainexample embodiments, denoted generally as 200. In this particularembodiment, Gibbs distribution steps are used to obtain samples so thatMCMC estimates of the posterior predictive probabilities can beobtained. The algorithm 200 begins at block 202 where a vector from anauxiliary model is initialized.Initialize T w.r.tY T=t _(s-1) at step s.  (1)

The T is a matrix to be populated with latent variables and the Ycorresponds to the vector of observed responses. The t_(s-1) is theinitialized latent variable and is a vector associated with the observedresponse vector Y. Next at block 204, the dependency between themultivariate responses are updated according to equation 2.Update Σ=Σ_(s) use the fact that Σ|t _(s-1)˜InverseWishart(n−q,Σ),where, Σ=t′ _(s-1)(I−Z( x ))(Z( x )⁻¹ Z( x )′)t _(s-1).  (2)

The Σ represents the covariance matrix, {circumflex over (Σ)} representsthe least squares estimate of Σ, Z(x) is a matrix valued function of aninput x, Z(x)′ is its transpose, and t_(s-1) and t′_(s-1) are the scalarand scalar transpose of the auxiliary model. Next, block 206, regressioncoefficients which relate the predictors to the latent variables andthus the responses are updated, using Eq. 3, and the matrix {circumflexover (B)} is updated.Update B=B _(s) use the fact that B|Σ _(s) ,t _(s-1) ˜N _(q×p)({tildeover (B)},Σ,⊗(Z( x )′Z( x )⁻¹)where, B=(Z( x )′Z( x )⁻¹ Z( x )′y)  (3)

The B represents the matrix of regression coefficients, and the{circumflex over (B)} represents the least squares estimate of B, and yrepresents a scalar of the response vector. Next, block 208, thedependency measure and estimated coefficient are correlated with thelatent variable t_(s-1) using Eq. 4, a joint posterior density function,and the auxiliary model is updated accordingly.Update T=T _(s) use the fact that π( t|y,x,B,Σ)∝π( y|t)×π(t|x,B,Σ)=Π_(i=1) ^(p)π_(i) ^(y) ^(i) (1−π_(i))^(1-y) ^(i) ×N(B _(z)( x),Σ)  (4)

Next, block 210, the latent variable t_(s-1) is updated and blocks204-208 are repeated until convergence, i.e. until a solution is stable.So after this step, all the necessary pieces are in place to begin tosearch the input space to find the optimal input which yields themaximum probability for the desired output.

Referring now to FIG. 2B, illustrated is a flow diagram of an algorithmfor the predictor 104 of predictive engine 100, according to certainexample embodiments, denoted generally as 220. The algorithm 220 cangenerate a probability distribution of latent variable, i.e. anauxiliary model, categorize the distribution of latent variables, ifnecessary, and search an input space to find the optimal input thatyields the largest probability of the desired/optimal response, i.e.P(y∈A|x). The algorithm 220 begins at 222 where the auxiliary model isreceived for processing. Next, block 224, a predictive distribution ofthe latent variables is determined using Eq. 5, a posterior predictiondistribution function.

$\begin{matrix}{{{t\left( {\left. {\underset{\sim}{t}}^{*} \middle| \underset{\sim}{x} \right.,\underset{\sim}{t}} \right)} = {c\left\{ {1 + {\frac{1}{v}\left( {{\underset{\sim}{t}}^{*} - {\hat{B}{z\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)}}} \right)^{\prime}{H\left( {{\underset{\sim}{t}}^{*} - {\hat{B}{z\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)}}} \right)}}} \right\}^{- \frac{p + v}{2}}\mspace{14mu}{where}}},\begin{matrix}{{c = \frac{{\Gamma\left( \frac{p + v}{2} \right)}\sqrt{H}}{{\Gamma\left( \frac{v}{2} \right)}\left( {\pi\; v} \right)^{p/2}}},} \\{{H = \frac{{vV}^{- 1}}{1 + {{z\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)}\prime\; D^{- 1}{z(x)}}}},} \\{{D = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}{{z\left( {\underset{\sim}{x}}_{i} \right)}z\;\left( {\underset{\sim}{x}}_{i} \right)^{\prime}}}},} \\\left. {V = {\left( {T - \left( {\hat{B}Z} \right)^{\prime}} \right)^{\prime}\left( {T - {\hat{B}Z}} \right)^{\prime}}} \right)\end{matrix}} & (5)\end{matrix}$

Here n is the number of observations, Z=(z(

), z(

), z(

)). {circumflex over (B)} is the least squares estimate of B given inequation (4) and T=(t ₁, t ₂, . . . , t_(p))′. Next, block 226, thepredictive probabilities for the auxiliary model, i.e. the samples ofthe vector of latent variables, are then converted to the responses,e.g. the categorical responses, using Eq. 6. Since the target is not tofind the optimized t, but to re-map it to the binary response space asy, the predicted y_(i) from the conditional distribution of y_(i)|t_(i)is obtained as shown in Eq. 6.y _(i) |t _(i) ≡I(t _(i)>0)y _(i) +I(t _(i)≤0)(1−y _(i))∀i  (6)Next, block 228, the predictive probabilities for the categoricaloutputs are determined. That is to say, P(y∈A|x) can then beapproximated by sampling enough times. Next, block 230, a genericnumerical optimization algorithm, e.g. some variant of Newton's method,grid search, etc., can be implemented to search for the optimal input.

Response Surface Methodology is a popular set of statistical techniquesused to improve a system process. Bayesian multivariate responseoptimization methods have been proposed that consider the dependencestructure among the responses when locating the optimal region asdefined by some loss or desirability function. A contribution of thisapplication lies in addressing the Bayesian reliability optimization formultivariate binary responses where the logistic models with traditionalBayesian reliability approach suffers from computational complexities.The application focuses on reducing the computational complexities byintroducing latent variables in the response structure. NumerousResponse Surface and Design of Experiment (DOE) methodologies includingboth frequentist and Bayesian approaches have been proposed to addressthe problem of optimizing multiple responses. Frequentist approachesinclude Derringer, G. (1980). “Simultaneous optimization of severalresponse variables”. Journal of quality technology, 12 214-219, and DelCastillo, Montgomery, and McCarville (1996) “Modified desirabilityfunctions for multiple response optimization,” Journal of qualitytechnology, 28 337-345, which are all based on the optimization of adesirability function with respect to the experimental factor levels.Pignatiello Jr, J. J. (1993) “Strategies for robust multiresponsequality engineering,” IIE transactions, 25 5-15, and Vining, G., Myers,R. (1990) “Combining Taguchi and response surface philosophies—A dualresponse approach,” Journal of quality technology, 22 38-45 proposedprocedures based on minimization of a quadratic loss function. Bayesianapproaches have been proposed which analyzes the proportion ofnonconforming units but it does not address optimization over responsesurfaces. Peterson (2004) introduced a Bayesian posterior predictiveapproach which optimizes a user specified target region on the responsespace based on the posterior predictive probability with respect to theinput space. Peterson's method also addressed specific weaknesses of thefrequentist approach by taking into account the covariance structure ofthe responses and the parameter uncertainty of the models. Wang, J., Ma,Y., Ouyang, L., Tu, Y. (2016) “A new Bayesian approach to multi-responsesurface optimization integrating loss function with posteriorprobability,” European Journal of Operational Research, 249 231-237incorporated the measures of bias or robustness by combining the idea ofquality loss function (Ko, Y. H., Kim, K. J., Jun. C. H. (2009), “A newloss function-based method for multiresponse optimization,” Journal ofQuality Technology, 37 50-59) with Peterson's Bayesian reliabilityapproach and showed that the proposed method provides a more reasonablesolution.

Although, Peterson's approach has considered optimizing multivariatequantitative responses only, the same idea can be extended toqualitative responses as well. For example, an output of interest can bedefined in terms of whether or not multiple outputs meets certainquality characteristics or tests, whether the output product is free ofmultiple possible defects, and so on. Currently, no widely acceptedmethods exist for how to optimize response surfaces derived fromexperimental designs to address such questions. Moreover, the proposedmethod—which is based on Bayesian statistical theory—can be extended toa broader audience as it can solve many other experimental designproblems like drug tests in the pharmaceutical industries or checkingthe effects of different chemical components (e.g. ignition tests) inthe chemical industries or even in manufacturing domain. For a specificresearch interest, the serum testing experiment on infected mice (Smith,W. (1932), “The titration of antipneumococcus serum,” Journal ofPathology, 35 509-526) can be considered, where different doses of serumwere injected to mice and the response was their survival after sevendays. Different other qualitative characteristics of those mice can beobtained as responses to retrieve the effects of different dosage ofserum.

Recent advancements is different computation techniques and efficiencygained through higher computing power opened many opportunities tohandle complex modeling scenarios where the data need to be handled inan indirect way. In many situations, unsupervised learning methods needto be implemented to gain better insight from the dataset. For example,let us consider a situation of a psychometric test where some patientshave been given with different dosages of multiple medicines and aftercompleting a full course of treatment, the patients are provided with aquestionnaire with some sample questions as whether the patients haveany pain (yes or now), whether the patients have developed any rashes(yes or no) or how the patients are feeling compared to the time beforethe treatment started (on a scale of 1 to 10) and so on. One anotherexample could be a market survey for a cookie to optimize its qualitybased some responses like chewiness, hardness, sweetness etc. These arecouple of typical scenarios where the responses are qualitative butcorrelated. A typical arcsine transformation would treat the responsesindependently and also will tend to skew if number of categories growsmoderately large. Hence, it is important to handle the responses in adata driven way such that the dependence structure among themselves canbe preserved.

In the disclosure, the implementation of Peterson's (2004) posteriorpredictive approach is extended to binary responses and to categoricalresponses with more than two levels. The approach is illustrated with acase study.

Implementation of the Bayesian posterior predictive approach to thebinary logistic case induces a complicated posterior formulation. As asimple example, consider a univariate binary logistic model as,logit P(y=1|β,σ)=β′z( x )+e.

Where e has a multivariate normal distribution with mean vector 0 andcovariance matrix σ²/n. Consider a similar setup as Peterson (2004) witha Bayesian modeling of the above logit link and a non-informative prioron β and σ² as

${\pi\left( {\underset{\sim}{\beta},\sigma^{2}} \right)} \propto {\frac{1}{\sigma}.}$The joint density of (γ, β, σ²) is given by,

${\pi\left( {\underset{\sim}{y},\underset{\sim}{\beta},{\sigma^{2}❘\underset{\sim}{x}}} \right)} \propto {\frac{e^{{\underset{\sim}{\beta}}^{\prime}{z{(\underset{\sim}{x})}}}}{1 + e^{{\underset{\sim}{\beta}}^{\prime}{z{(\underset{\sim}{x})}}}} \times \frac{1}{\sigma}}$

Hence a closed form expression of the posteriors as well as theposterior predictive density is difficult to obtain even in theunivariate case.

A nice approximation in the multivariate logistic regression case comesfrom the multi-variate t distribution,

${{P\left( {{y_{1} = y_{10}},{y_{2} = y_{20}},\;{.\;.\;.}\mspace{14mu},{y_{p} = {y_{p\; 0}❘B}},\Sigma,\underset{\sim}{x}} \right)} = {{\tau_{p,v}\left( {{{\underset{\sim}{y}❘\underset{\sim}{\mu}} = \underset{\sim}{0}},\Sigma} \right)} \times {\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{p}\;{\frac{l\left( {y_{i}❘{\underset{\sim}{\beta}}_{i}} \right)}{\tau_{v,1}\left( {{{y_{i}❘\mu_{i}} = 0},{\sigma_{i}^{2} = 1}} \right)}\mspace{20mu}{where}}}}},{{\tau_{p,v}\left( {{\underset{\sim}{y}❘\underset{\sim}{\mu}},\Sigma} \right)} = {\left( \frac{\Gamma\left( {\left( {v + p} \right)/2} \right)}{{\Gamma\left( {v/2} \right)}\left( {v\;\pi} \right)^{p/2}{\Sigma }^{1/2}} \right) \times \left\{ {1 + {\frac{1}{v}\left( {\underset{\sim}{y} - \underset{\sim}{\mu}} \right)^{\prime}{\Sigma_{- 1}\left( {\underset{\sim}{y} - \underset{\sim}{\mu}} \right)}}} \right\}^{{- {({v + p})}}/2}\mspace{14mu}{and}}},{{l\left( {y❘\beta_{\iota}} \right)} = \frac{e^{{\underset{\sim}{x}}^{\prime}{\underset{\sim}{\beta}}_{\iota}}}{1 + e^{{\underset{\sim}{x}}^{\prime}{\underset{\sim}{\beta}}_{\iota}}}}$Here β, is the i^(th) row of B. If a similar prior set up as Peterson(2004), i.e.

${{\pi\left( {B,\Sigma} \right)} \propto {\Sigma }^{- \frac{p + 1}{2}}},$is considered then the joint posterior can be written as,

${P\left( {B,{\Sigma ❘\underset{\sim}{y}},\underset{\sim}{x}} \right)} \propto {{\tau_{p,v}\left( {{{\underset{\sim}{y}❘\underset{\sim}{\mu}} = \underset{\sim}{0}},\Sigma} \right)} \times {\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{p}\;{\frac{l\left( {y_{i}❘{\underset{\sim}{\beta}}_{i}} \right)}{\tau_{v,1}\left( {{{y_{i}❘\mu_{i}} = 0},{\sigma_{1}^{2} = 1}} \right)} \times {\Sigma }^{- \frac{p + 1}{2}}}}}$

The marginal posteriors do not to have closed form expressions andrequire the Metropolis-Hastings to approximate. The Bayesian methodproposed in the application approaches the problem from a Bayesianclassification modeling perspective. The latent response variables areiteratively mapped to the original observed binary responses in such away that an optimal representation of the binary variables in terms of aseparated non-overlapping hyperplane is obtained.

In the following section, a binary response optimization model alongwith the corresponding prior structure is presented. Gibbs steps areused to obtain samples so that MCMC estimates of the posteriorpredictive probabilities can be obtained. Simulation studies are alsopresented that have been carried out for multiple scenarios to check theperformance of the model and some convergence diagnostics for the MCMChave been provided. Additionally, the model is implemented to a realdata through different numerical optimizations over the posteriorpredictive density domain. Finally, as a conclusion key findings alongwith the scope of the method's applicability is presented.

A Bayesian reliability model for multivariate binary responses ispresented. Suppose Y=(y₁, y₂, . . . y_(p))′ is the multivariate (p×1)response vector and x=(x₁, x₂, . . . , x_(k))′ is the (k×1) vector ofpredictors. Here, the responses y_(i)∀i∈1, 2, . . . , p are binarytaking values 0 or 1. The goal of the analysis is to maximize theprobability that y is inside a user specified target region A withrespect to the input space x, i.e. to maximize P(y∈A|x). Define a latentvariable t_(ij) of the form y_(ij)=I(t_(ij)>0). Hence y_(ij)'s areidentified though the latent variables t_(ij)'s. To get aninterpretation of such a representation, t can be assumed to be anelement from an induced p dimensional hyperplane from the input space.An optimal classification model obtained through t will divide thehyperplane into two disjoint sections where y can be classifiedoptimally.

The Bayesian classical response surface technique is adapted to model tand the density of the distribution of t towards each side of the realline with respect to zero defines the outcome for y. It is assumed thaty_(i)'s are conditionally independent given t_(i)'s, that is,P(Y _(i) =y _(i) |t _(i))=θ_(i) ^(y) ^(i) (1−θ_(i))^(1-y) ^(i) ∀i=1,2, .. . ,p  (1)where, θ_(i)=P(t_(i)>0).

The conditional independence simply translates the propagation of theorthogonality among the dimensions of the hyperplane to the dimensionsof the multivariate responses. Hence, the conditional independence ofthe Y_(i)'s preserves the marginal dependence as well as makes the modeleasier to handle and interpret. Since, t is defined over the real spaceand represents the binary responses in a well-defined way, t can be usedto write our regular regression model as,t=Bz( x )+ e.  (2)where B is a p×q matrix of regression coefficients and z(x) is a q×1vector valued function of x. A typical example of z(x) can consist ofthe first and the second order effects as well as the interactions, i.e.if x₁ and x₂ are two model inputs, then z(x)=(x₁,x₂,x₁ ²,x₂ ²,x₁x₂). Itcan be assumed z(x) is the same for all response variables and e has amultivariate normal distribution with mean vector 0 and covariancematrix E. A non-informative joint prior on (B, Σ) can be taken as,

$\begin{matrix}{{\pi\left( {B,\Sigma} \right)} \propto {\Sigma }^{- \frac{p + 1}{2}}} & (3)\end{matrix}$

Although the underlying model considers a multivariate binary responsemodel, considering a nested auxiliary model through latent variablessimplifies the extraction of the dependence structure between theresponses. The covariance matrix Σ defines the dependence between thet_(i)'s which translates to the dependence structure between the binaryresponses y_(i)'s.

The joint posterior density of t, B, Σ|y, x can be written as:

${{{{\pi\left( {\underset{\sim}{t},B,{\Sigma ❘\underset{\sim}{y}},\underset{\sim}{x}} \right)} \propto {{\pi\left( {\underset{\sim}{y}❘\underset{\sim}{t}} \right)} \times {\pi\left( {{\underset{\sim}{t}❘\underset{\sim}{x}},B,\Sigma} \right)} \times}}\;\quad}{\pi\left( {B,\Sigma} \right)}} \propto {\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{p}{{\pi_{i}^{y_{i}}\left( {1 - \pi_{i}} \right)}^{1 - y_{i}} \times {N\left( {{B\;{z\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)}},\Sigma} \right)} \times {\Sigma }^{- \frac{p + 1}{2}}}}$

The posterior expression shows the underlying model is a simple Bayesianregression model nested within a binary structure. As the expressionscontaining y, the binary predictor is free from the model parameters,the closed form posterior expressions for B and Σ can be easily obtainedfrom the simple techniques of Bayesian linear regression.

Since binary and categorical response modeling have been considered inthe application, the target for an experimenter could be of the formp(x)=P(y=A|x) where A is a vector of 0's and 1's. Hence, the task is toobtain the posterior predictive distribution of t and get the posteriorpredictive distribution of y conditioned on t, but since the actual t isnot being observed, but rather y, the optimized t needs to be obtainedwhich can be considered representatives of the distribution of y. Tothis end, an arbitrary t is selected and then the model is updated withthe posterior density of B and Σ and then finally update t byincorporating the observed y in the updated model. The details of theGibbs steps for optimizing t are given below.

Gibbs Steps:

(i) Initialize T w.r.tY

Start with T=t_(s-1) at step s.

(ii) Update Σ=Σ_(s)Σ|t _(s-1)˜InverseWishart(n−q,{circumflex over (Σ)}),where, Σ=t′ _(s-1)(I−Z( x )Z( x )′Z( x )⁻¹ Z( x )′)t _(s-1).

(iii) Update B=B_(s)

Use the fact that:B|Σ _(s) ,t _(s-1) ˜N _(q×p)({circumflex over (B)},Σ⊗(Z( x )Z( x ))⁻¹ Z(x )′)t _(s-1).where, B=(Z( x )′Z( x ))⁻¹ Z( x )′ y   (4)

(iv) Update T=t_(s) and go to step (2)

Use the fact that:

${{\pi\left( {{\underset{\sim}{t}❘\underset{\sim}{y}},\underset{\sim}{x},B,\Sigma} \right)} \propto {{\pi\left( {\underset{\sim}{y}❘\underset{\sim}{t}} \right)} \times {\pi\left( {{\underset{\sim}{t}❘\underset{\sim}{x}},B,\Sigma} \right)}}} = {\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{p}{{\pi_{i}^{y_{i}}\left( {1 - \pi_{i}} \right)}^{1 - y_{i}} \times {N\left( {{{B\;}_{z}\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)},\Sigma} \right)}}}$

The above steps are repeated until convergence. Then T=t* can finally bepredicted based on the optimized input t using the multivariate tposterior predictive distribution:

$\begin{matrix}{{{t\left( {\left. {\underset{\sim}{t}}^{*} \middle| \underset{\sim}{x} \right.,\underset{\sim}{t}} \right)} = {c\left\{ {1 + {\frac{1}{v}\left( {{\underset{\sim}{t}}^{*} - {\hat{B}{z\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)}}} \right)^{\prime}{H\left( {{\underset{\sim}{t}}^{*} - {\hat{B}{z\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)}}} \right)}}} \right\}^{- \frac{p + v}{2}}\mspace{14mu}{where}}},\begin{matrix}{{c = \frac{{\Gamma\left( \frac{p + v}{2} \right)}\sqrt{H}}{{\Gamma\left( \frac{v}{2} \right)}\left( {\pi\; v} \right)^{p/2}}},} \\{{H = \frac{{vV}^{- 1}}{1 + {{z\left( \underset{\sim}{x} \right)}\prime\; D^{- 1}{z(x)}}}},} \\{{D = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}{{z\left( {\underset{\sim}{x}}_{i} \right)}z\;\left( {\underset{\sim}{x}}_{i} \right)^{\prime}}}},} \\\left. {V = {\left( {T - \left( {\hat{B}Z} \right)^{\prime}} \right)^{\prime}\left( {T - {\hat{B}Z}} \right)^{\prime}}} \right)\end{matrix}} & (5)\end{matrix}$

Here n is the number of observations, Z=(z(

), z(

), z(

)). {circumflex over (B)} is the least squares estimate of B given inequation (4) and T=(t ₁, t ₂, . . . , t _(p))′. Since the target is notto find the optimized t, but to re-map it to the binary response spaceas y, predicted y _(i) is obtained from the conditional distribution ofy_(i)|t_(i) as,y _(i) |t _(i) ≡I(t _(i)>0)y _(i) +I(t _(i)≤0)(1−y _(i))∀i  (6)

Here n is the number of observations, Z=(z(

), z(

), . . . , z(

)), {circumflex over (B)} is the least squares estimate of B given inequation (4) and T=(t ₁, t ₂, . . . , t _(p))′.

The final goal is to find the optimum region in the input space, wherethe probability that y=A for some user defined ordered set A of 0's and1's can be optimized, the posterior predictive distribution of y can besampled in order to obtain an approximation of P(y=A|x). Hence, theestimates of the probabilities of such kind for each given x in theinput space can be obtained. Now, the target is to know which x or someneighborhood that optimizes such a probability so that it can be said tobe the most reliable working region for producing the optimized outputwith respect to the user defined conditions. There are several ways ofsolving such an optimization problem over the input space x. The mostnaive way to is to form a grid over the input space and compute P(y=A|x)for each grid point x. This is the easiest way to obtain the desired xbut the efficiency of this process depends on the number of splits toobtain the grid points. Also, too many grid point may slow down thewhole computation. Another possible way is to pick points randomly fromthe input space x and obtain the probability P(y=A|x). This process alsosuffers from the same issue as grid search method since significantlymany points have to be obtained from the input space so that theoptimized input region is not missed.

Another process mathematically more sophisticated is to obtain theoptimized point through ridge analysis where the input space isoptimized first over the circumference of a hypersphere of radius r andsuppose x _(r) is the optimized point. Then the process is continuedwith different values of r and finally the optimized x ₀ over the set {x_(r):r=r₁, r₂, . . . , r_(k)} is found.

In order to check the performance of modeling multivariate binaryresponses through latent continuous variables, simulation studies on 2different scenarios are performed.

In the first scenario, a 2³ design with main effects only and 2 responsevariables are considered. The model is simulated using some randomlygenerated values for B=((0.213797, 0.222853, −0.4923, −0.22765),(−0.07103, −0.38147, −0.200283, −0.41591)) and a randomly generatedcovariance matrix Σ. FIG. 3A illustrates a table (referenced herein asTable 1) that includes posterior means of the model coefficients (withGeweke Statistics) for scenario 1. FIG. 3B are autocorrelation plots forthe MCMC samples of the model coefficients in scenario 1. Executing theGibbs steps 10,000 times with a burn-in period of 8,000. Table 1 showsthe posterior means for the model coefficients along with the Gewekesummary Z-statistics for the convergence diagnostics. Moreover, FIG.3B-1 and FIG. 3B-2 show the autocorrelation plot for the MCMC samplesgenerated from the posterior distributions of the model coefficients.

In the second scenario, a 2⁵ design including all second orderinteractions in the model and 3 response variables is considered. Themodel is simulated using some randomly generated values of B and Σ. Thetrue values for the model coefficients in B is illustrated FIG. 4A(referenced herein as Table 2). The Gibbs is executed sampling 25,000times with a burn-in period of 15,000. The posterior mean for the modelcoefficient along with the Geweke summary Z-scores for convergencediagnostics is illustrated in FIG. 4C (referenced herein as Table 3).Illustrated in FIG. 4B are partial autocorrelation plots for the MCMCsamples of the intercept and the main effects for y₁.

It is evident from both of the simulation studies in the two scenariosthat the proposed algorithm is quite efficiently estimating the trueunderlying model. The technique that has been implemented to generatethe true model is to first generate true latent responses from therandomly generated model parameters and then generate the binaryresponses though the conditional density given the auxiliary latentresponses. In that sense, the proposed model is only able to see thedata through the binary responses and has no knowledge of the underlyinglatent responses. Instead of that, the highest posterior densityintervals and the posterior means for the model coefficients indicatesthat the model is well able to get close to the true scenario.

Also, the MCMC diagnostics through Geweke Z-scores and autocorrelationand partial autocorrelation plots indicates the MCMC has attained goodmixing and proper convergence to the stationary distribution. Although,thinning has been applied to decrease the autocorrelation between thesuccessive samples.

In this section, a case study which involves cigarette ignition testingon soft furnishing is considered. The goal of the study is to determinewhether potency of cigarette as an ignition source could be moderated bymodifying different cigarette characteristics. In reference to Krasny,J., Gann, R. Eberhardt, K (1986). NIST Dataplotdatasets—http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/datasets.htm—thedata is considered which consists of 8 responses and 5 predictors. Thekey aspect of this study is to check the resistance of the fabric tocigarette ignition. Among those 8 responses, 4 are categorical statingthe number of ignitions out of 5 trials over different types of fabrics.The 5 predictors represent the different characteristic of cigarettes.

Since the motivation is to find a reliable operating region for multiplebinary responses, working only with the 4 categorical responses namely“California Test Fabric/Cotton Batting”, “100% Cotton SplendorFabric/Polyur, 2045”, “100% Cotton Denim Fabric/Polyur, 2045” and “100%Cotton Splendor Fabric/Polyur, 2045” is considered. The categoricalresponse problem to a binary response is converted in the following way.The converted response variables take the value 0 if their observedvalue is less than or equal to 2 and 1 otherwise. As the goal for thisexperiment is to locate a region within the input space that minimizesthe number of ignitions, the response vector of interest is (0, 0, 0,0). The 5 predictors are respectively “Citrate Concentration (0.8 and0)”, “Paper Porocity (Low and High)”, “Expanded (No Fluff and Fluff)”,“Tobacco Type (Burley and Flu-Cured)”, “Circumference in MM”. The twolevels for each predictor have been denoted as −1 (low) and +1 (high)respectively in the data. All main effects of the 5 independentvariables along with all first order interactions are considered. Arestriction of up to a second order polynomial is implemented to reducethe number of model parameters. Also, the squared main effects are notincluded as it is preferred to bypass any multicollinearity due tocorrelated predictors.

The initial Gibbs steps are ran for estimating the model parameters25,000 times with 15,000 burn-ins. FIG. 5C (referenced herein as Table4) shows the posterior estimates of the model coefficients. Table 4illustrates the posterior means of Model Coefficients (with PosteriorStandard Deviations).

To maintain consistency with the original dataset, x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅are defined to represent V₉, V₁₀, V₁₁, V₁₂, V₁₃, respectively. The first8 variables correspond to the responses. Only the 4 categoricalresponses V₅, V₆, V₇, V₈ are worked on and are represented as y₁, y₂,y₃, y₄ respectively. Next, the MCMC iterations are ran on the posteriorpredictive density 1,000 times for each point in the input space toestimate the probability P(y₁=0, y₂=0, y₃=0, y₄=0|x). The MCMC estimatesof the probabilities are ran over a grid on the covariate space and thenoptimize over the grid. Thinning has been applied to the posterior toreduce autocorrelation between successive samples.

The decreasing pattern for higher lag in the partial autocorrelationplots for the intercepts and the main effects for response y₁ in FIG. 5Aindicates a good mixing of the MCMC chain. FIG. 5A are partialautocorrelation plots for the MCMC samples of the intercept and the maineffects corresponding to y₁.

Based on the grid search method, the optimized points over the inputspace are given by, x₁=0.926, x₂=−0.971, x₃=0.944, x₄=−0.782, andx₅=−0.579. Moreover, the optimized probability is given by P(y₁=0, y₂=0,y₃=0, y₄=0|x)=0.703. Hence, it can be concluded if the covariates can beset to the optimized values, there is a 70.3% chance that the proportionof ignition on the 4 given fabrics can be lowered by 40% or less (2 orless out of 5 trials).

It is quite important to run the Gibbs sampling until proper convergencein order to ensure an optimal representation of the binary responses interms of the latent continuous variables. The optimization problem inthe input space through ridge analysis or grid search method depends onthe number of grid points or radius selected while doing theoptimization so that it can represent the input space well enough. Tohave a decent understanding on the operating region for future targetoutput, very fine segments of the input space has to be made in eithercase. A logistic model can also be used to model the probability surfacethough a higher degree polynomial so that it can easily capture thelocal maxima's or minima's in case the output become multimodal. Theissue of flat probability surface over a large neighborhood of the inputspace, which will lead the estimation of the optimized input space to beunstable, may also be encountered. Although, an optimized operationalregion is easy obtainable if the experimenter tries to retrieve theregion instead of a point that has a probability higher than somepre-defined cut off. In general, the user would like to retrieve theregion with highest 5% or 10% probability. A good understanding of theoptimized operating region can be easily obtained from the differentplots with respect to different pairs of covariates in FIG. 5B-1 andFIG. 5B-2. FIG. 5B-1 and FIG. 5B-2 illustrates probability plots for thetarget response region over the domain of a covariate pairs when othercovariates are set to their optimized values.

Consider y=(y₁, y₂, . . . , y_(p)) is a multivariate p×1 response vectorwhere each y_(i) can be observed in any of it's q_(i) different levels,∀i∈1, 2, . . . , p. In this scenario, the technique of binary responseoptimization, if the levels are ordered in some format, can be easilyextended. For example, suppose the task is to predict the grades of thestudents in some course based on the hours the students studied in thepreceding week of exam and the hours the students slept. Now, theresponse variable in this model is grades which can be ordered in a lowto high format.

Suppose the different levels of y_(i)'s are encoded in an ordered formatas {1, 2, . . . , q_(i)} that is, with first q_(i) natural numbers.Consider a latent variable t_(i) where,

$t_{i} \in \left\{ \begin{matrix}\left( {{- \infty},c_{1}} \right) & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} y_{i}} = 1} \\\left\lbrack {c_{{yi} - 1},c_{yi}} \right) & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} y_{i}} \in \left\{ {2,3,\;{.\;.\;.}\mspace{14mu},{q_{i} - 1}} \right\}} \\\left\lbrack {c_{{qi} - 1},\infty} \right) & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} y_{i}} = q_{i}}\end{matrix} \right.$

It can be assumed, y_(i)'s are conditionally independent given t_(i)'sand,

y_(i)❘t_(i) ∼ Multinomial  (1, p₁, p₂, . . .  , p_(qi − 1))  where, p₁ = P(t_(i) < c₁)p_(k) = P(c_(yk − 1) ≤ t_(i) < c_(yk))  ∀y_(k) ∈ {2, 3, . . .  , q_(i) − 1}$p_{qi} = {1 - {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{{qi} - 1}p_{k}}}$

Hence, this is a similar modeling scenario as previously discussed wherenow there are conditionally independent responses distributed asmultinomial random variables instead of Bernoulli. The posteriorsdensities of the parameters and the posterior predictive density of ycan be derived in a very similar fashion as discussed above.

An important aspect of the disclosure is a closed form Bayesiantechnique for multivariate binary response optimization problems.Looking at the problem from an unsupervised learning perspective ofclassifying the responses through a fully Bayesian computation not onlyhas made the problem mathematically sound, but also has given tremendouscomputational advantages. The interpretability of the latent continuousresponses from a classification problem perspective allows the techniqueto be extended beyond a design of experiment problem as it carries overthe covariance structure of any categorical responses to a continuousdomain.

This method also provides a parameter uncertainty measure instead of apoint estimate as in frequentist methods. This gives a great advantagefor process control as the experimenter would not only have a properknowledge about the optimal input settings, but also would know how manytimes the process can fail even when the inputs are set to their optimalsettings. Extension of the whole technique to incorporate multivariatecategorical responses simply broadens the above perspective.

Referring now to FIG. 6, illustrated is a computing machine 300 and asystem applications module 400, in accordance with example embodiments.The computing machine 300 can correspond to any of the variouscomputers, mobile devices, laptop computers, servers, embedded systems,or computing systems presented herein. The module 400 can comprise oneor more hardware or software elements, e.g. other OS application anduser and kernel space applications, designed to facilitate the computingmachine 300 in performing the various methods and processing functionspresented herein. The computing machine 300 can include various internalor attached components such as a processor 310, system bus 320, systemmemory 330, storage media 340, input/output interface 350, and a networkinterface 360 for communicating with a network 370, e.g. cellular/GPS,Bluetooth, or WIFI.

The computing machines can be implemented as a conventional computersystem, an embedded controller, a laptop, a server, a mobile device, asmartphone, a wearable computer, a customized machine, any otherhardware platform, or any combination or multiplicity thereof. Thecomputing machines can be a distributed system configured to functionusing multiple computing machines interconnected via a data network orbus system.

The processor 310 can be designed to execute code instructions in orderto perform the operations and functionality described herein, managerequest flow and address mappings, and to perform calculations andgenerate commands. The processor 310 can be configured to monitor andcontrol the operation of the components in the computing machines. Theprocessor 310 can be a general purpose processor, a processor core, amultiprocessor, a reconfigurable processor, a microcontroller, a digitalsignal processor (“DSP”), an application specific integrated circuit(“ASIC”), a controller, a state machine, gated logic, discrete hardwarecomponents, any other processing unit, or any combination ormultiplicity thereof. The processor 310 can be a single processing unit,multiple processing units, a single processing core, multiple processingcores, special purpose processing cores, co-processors, or anycombination thereof. According to certain embodiments, the processor 310along with other components of the computing machine 300 can be asoftware based or hardware based virtualized computing machine executingwithin one or more other computing machines.

The system memory 330 can include non-volatile memories such asread-only memory (“ROM”), programmable read-only memory (“PROM”),erasable programmable read-only memory (“EPROM”), flash memory, or anyother device capable of storing program instructions or data with orwithout applied power. The system memory 330 can also include volatilememories such as random access memory (“RAM”), static random accessmemory (“SRAM”), dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), and synchronousdynamic random access memory (“SDRAM”). Other types of RAM also can beused to implement the system memory 330. The system memory 330 can beimplemented using a single memory module or multiple memory modules.While the system memory 330 is depicted as being part of the computingmachine, one skilled in the art will recognize that the system memory330 can be separate from the computing machine 300 without departingfrom the scope of the subject technology. It should also be appreciatedthat the system memory 330 can include, or operate in conjunction with,a non-volatile storage device such as the storage media 340.

The storage media 340 can include a hard disk, a floppy disk, a compactdisc read-only memory (“CD-ROM”), a digital versatile disc (“DVD”), aBlu-ray disc, a magnetic tape, a flash memory, other non-volatile memorydevice, a solid state drive (“SSD”), any magnetic storage device, anyoptical storage device, any electrical storage device, any semiconductorstorage device, any physical-based storage device, any other datastorage device, or any combination or multiplicity thereof. The storagemedia 340 can store one or more operating systems, application programsand program modules, data, or any other information. The storage media340 can be part of, or connected to, the computing machine. The storagemedia 340 can also be part of one or more other computing machines thatare in communication with the computing machine such as servers,database servers, cloud storage, network attached storage, and so forth.

The applications module 400 and other OS application modules cancomprise one or more hardware or software elements configured tofacilitate the computing machine with performing the various methods andprocessing functions presented herein. The applications module 400 andother OS application modules can include one or more algorithms orsequences of instructions stored as software or firmware in associationwith the system memory 330, the storage media 340 or both. The storagemedia 340 can therefore represent examples of machine or computerreadable media on which instructions or code can be stored for executionby the processor 310. Machine or computer readable media can generallyrefer to any medium or media used to provide instructions to theprocessor 310. Such machine or computer readable media associated withthe applications module 400 and other OS application modules cancomprise a computer software product. It should be appreciated that acomputer software product comprising the applications module 400 andother OS application modules can also be associated with one or moreprocesses or methods for delivering the applications module 400 andother OS application modules to the computing machine via a network, anysignal-bearing medium, or any other communication or deliverytechnology. The applications module 400 and other OS application modulescan also comprise hardware circuits or information for configuringhardware circuits such as microcode or configuration information for anFPGA or other PLD. In one exemplary embodiment, applications module 400and other OS application modules can include algorithms capable ofperforming the functional operations described by the flow charts andcomputer systems presented herein.

The input/output (“I/O”) interface 350 can be configured to couple toone or more external devices, to receive data from the one or moreexternal devices, and to send data to the one or more external devices.Such external devices along with the various internal devices can alsobe known as peripheral devices. The I/O interface 350 can include bothelectrical and physical connections for coupling the various peripheraldevices to the computing machine or the processor 310. The I/O interface350 can be configured to communicate data, addresses, and controlsignals between the peripheral devices, the computing machine, or theprocessor 310. The I/O interface 350 can be configured to implement anystandard interface, such as small computer system interface (“SCSI”),serial-attached SCSI (“SAS”), fiber channel, peripheral componentinterconnect (“PCP”), PCI express (PCIe), serial bus, parallel bus,advanced technology attached (“ATA”), serial ATA (“SATA”), universalserial bus (“USB”), Thunderbolt, FireWire, various video buses, and thelike. The I/O interface 350 can be configured to implement only oneinterface or bus technology. Alternatively, the I/O interface 350 can beconfigured to implement multiple interfaces or bus technologies. The I/Ointerface 350 can be configured as part of, all of, or to operate inconjunction with, the system bus 320. The I/O interface 350 can includeone or more buffers for buffering transmissions between one or moreexternal devices, internal devices, the computing machine, or theprocessor 320.

The I/O interface 320 can couple the computing machine to various inputdevices including mice, touch-screens, scanners, electronic digitizers,sensors, receivers, touchpads, trackballs, cameras, microphones,keyboards, any other pointing devices, or any combinations thereof. TheI/O interface 320 can couple the computing machine to various outputdevices including video displays, speakers, printers, projectors,tactile feedback devices, automation control, robotic components,actuators, motors, fans, solenoids, valves, pumps, transmitters, signalemitters, lights, and so forth.

The computing machine 300 can operate in a networked environment usinglogical connections through the NIC 360 to one or more other systems orcomputing machines across a network. The network can include wide areanetworks (WAN), local area networks (LAN), intranets, the Internet,wireless access networks, wired networks, mobile networks, telephonenetworks, optical networks, or combinations thereof. The network can bepacket switched, circuit switched, of any topology, and can use anycommunication protocol. Communication links within the network caninvolve various digital or an analog communication media such as fiberoptic cables, free-space optics, waveguides, electrical conductors,wireless links, antennas, radio-frequency communications, and so forth.

The processor 310 can be connected to the other elements of thecomputing machine or the various peripherals discussed herein throughthe system bus 320. It should be appreciated that the system bus 320 canbe within the processor 310, outside the processor 310, or both.According to some embodiments, any of the processors 310, the otherelements of the computing machine, or the various peripherals discussedherein can be integrated into a single device such as a system on chip(“SOC”), system on package (“SOP”), or ASIC device.

Embodiments may comprise a computer program that embodies the functionsdescribed and illustrated herein, wherein the computer program isimplemented in a computer system that comprises instructions stored in amachine-readable medium and a processor that executes the instructions.However, it should be apparent that there could be many different waysof implementing embodiments in computer programming, and the embodimentsshould not be construed as limited to any one set of computer programinstructions unless otherwise disclosed for an exemplary embodiment.Further, a skilled programmer would be able to write such a computerprogram to implement an embodiment of the disclosed embodiments based onthe appended flow charts, algorithms and associated description in theapplication text. Therefore, disclosure of a particular set of programcode instructions is not considered necessary for an adequateunderstanding of how to make and use embodiments. Further, those skilledin the art will appreciate that one or more aspects of embodimentsdescribed herein may be performed by hardware, software, or acombination thereof, as may be embodied in one or more computingsystems. Moreover, any reference to an act being performed by a computershould not be construed as being performed by a single computer as morethan one computer may perform the act.

The example embodiments described herein can be used with computerhardware and software that perform the methods and processing functionsdescribed previously. The systems, methods, and procedures describedherein can be embodied in a programmable computer, computer-executablesoftware, or digital circuitry. The software can be stored oncomputer-readable media. For example, computer-readable media caninclude a floppy disk, RAM, ROM, hard disk, removable media, flashmemory, memory stick, optical media, magneto-optical media, CD-ROM, etc.Digital circuitry can include integrated circuits, gate arrays, buildingblock logic, field programmable gate arrays (FPGA), etc.

The example systems, methods, and acts described in the embodimentspresented previously are illustrative, and, in alternative embodiments,certain acts can be performed in a different order, in parallel with oneanother, omitted entirely, and/or combined between different exampleembodiments, and/or certain additional acts can be performed, withoutdeparting from the scope and spirit of various embodiments. Accordingly,such alternative embodiments are included in the description herein.

As used herein, the singular forms “a”, “an” and “the” are intended toinclude the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicatesotherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises”and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify thepresence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements,and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of oneor more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements,components, and/or groups thereof. As used herein, the term “and/or”includes any and all combinations of one or more of the associatedlisted items. As used herein, phrases such as “between X and Y” and“between about X and Y” should be interpreted to include X and Y. Asused herein, phrases such as “between about X and Y” mean “between aboutX and about Y.” As used herein, phrases such as “from about X to Y” mean“from about X to about Y.”

As used herein, “hardware” can include a combination of discretecomponents, an integrated circuit, an application-specific integratedcircuit, a field programmable gate array, or other suitable hardware. Asused herein, “software” can include one or more objects, agents,threads, lines of code, subroutines, separate software applications, twoor more lines of code or other suitable software structures operating intwo or more software applications, on one or more processors (where aprocessor includes one or more microcomputers or other suitable dataprocessing units, memory devices, input-output devices, displays, datainput devices such as a keyboard or a mouse, peripherals such asprinters and speakers, associated drivers, control cards, power sources,network devices, docking station devices, or other suitable devicesoperating under control of software systems in conjunction with theprocessor or other devices), or other suitable software structures. Inone exemplary embodiment, software can include one or more lines of codeor other suitable software structures operating in a general purposesoftware application, such as an operating system, and one or more linesof code or other suitable software structures operating in a specificpurpose software application. As used herein, the term “couple” and itscognate terms, such as “couples” and “coupled,” can include a physicalconnection (such as a copper conductor), a virtual connection (such asthrough randomly assigned memory locations of a data memory device), alogical connection (such as through logical gates of a semiconductingdevice), other suitable connections, or a suitable combination of suchconnections. The term “data” can refer to a suitable structure forusing, conveying or storing data, such as a data field, a data buffer, adata message having the data value and sender/receiver address data, acontrol message having the data value and one or more operators thatcause the receiving system or component to perform a function using thedata, or other suitable hardware or software components for theelectronic processing of data.

In general, a software system is a system that operates on a processorto perform predetermined functions in response to predetermined datafields. For example, a system can be defined by the function it performsand the data fields that it performs the function on. As used herein, aNAME system, where NAME is typically the name of the general functionthat is performed by the system, refers to a software system that isconfigured to operate on a processor and to perform the disclosedfunction on the disclosed data fields. Unless a specific algorithm isdisclosed, then any suitable algorithm that would be known to one ofskill in the art for performing the function using the associated datafields is contemplated as falling within the scope of the disclosure.For example, a message system that generates a message that includes asender address field, a recipient address field and a message fieldwould encompass software operating on a processor that can obtain thesender address field, recipient address field and message field from asuitable system or device of the processor, such as a buffer device orbuffer system, can assemble the sender address field, recipient addressfield and message field into a suitable electronic message format (suchas an electronic mail message, a TCP/IP message or any other suitablemessage format that has a sender address field, a recipient addressfield and message field), and can transmit the electronic message usingelectronic messaging systems and devices of the processor over acommunications medium, such as a network. One of ordinary skill in theart would be able to provide the specific coding for a specificapplication based on the foregoing disclosure, which is intended to setforth exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure, and not toprovide a tutorial for someone having less than ordinary skill in theart, such as someone who is unfamiliar with programming or processors ina suitable programming language. A specific algorithm for performing afunction can be provided in a flow chart form or in other suitableformats, where the data fields and associated functions can be set forthin an exemplary order of operations, where the order can be rearrangedas suitable and is not intended to be limiting unless explicitly statedto be limiting.

The foregoing description of embodiments of the disclosure has beenpresented for purposes of illustration and description. It is notintended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise formdisclosed, and modifications and variations are possible in light of theabove teachings or may be acquired from practice of the disclosure. Theembodiments were chosen and described in order to explain the principalsof the disclosure and its practical application to enable one skilled inthe art to utilize the disclosure in various embodiments and withvarious modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.Other substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made inthe design, operating conditions and arrangement of the embodimentswithout departing from the scope of the present disclosure. Suchmodifications and combinations of the illustrative embodiments as wellas other embodiments will be apparent to persons skilled in the art uponreference to the description. It is, therefore, intended that theappended claims encompass any such modifications or embodiments.

What is claimed is:
 1. A predictive engine for generating optimizedmultivariate responses, the predictive engine comprising: an optimizerconfigured by a processor to receive an observed dataset having inputpredictors and multivariate responses and select latent responsevariables, measure dependencies between multivariate responses, estimatecoefficients that relate the input predictors to latent responsevariables and correlate dependencies and coefficients with the latentresponse variable; and a predictor configured by a processor to generatea predictive distribution of probabilities for the latent variables, mapthe probabilities to multivariate responses, generate a predictivedistribution of probabilities for the multivariate responses, anddetermine at least one optimized input from the multivariate responses.2. The predictive engine of claim 1 wherein the dependencies aremeasured by creating a covariance matrix.
 3. The predictive engine ofclaim 1 wherein the dependencies and coefficients are correlated withthe latent response variables using joint posterior densitydistribution.
 4. The predictive engine of claim 1 wherein the optimizeris further configured to: (i) initialize a latent response variablevector with respect to an input predictor and multivariate responsevector; (ii) measure dependency between a latent response variable and amultivariate response; (iii) estimate a coefficient that relates aninput predictor to the latent response variable; (iv) correlate thedependency measure and the estimate coefficient with the latent responsevariable; and (v) select a latent response variable.
 5. The predictiveengine of claim 4 wherein the dependency measure and the estimatecoefficient is correlated with the latent variable using a jointposterior density distribution.
 6. The predictive engine of claim 4wherein steps (ii)-(v) are repeated until convergence.
 7. The predictiveengine of claim 1 wherein the multivariate responses are one ofmultivariate binary responses and multivariate categorical responses. 8.The predictive engine of claim 1 wherein the predictive distribution isa posterior predictive distribution.
 9. The predictive engine of claim 1wherein the probabilities are mapped to the multivariate responses bygenerating a conditional distribution.
 10. A method for generatingoptimized multivariate responses on a configured processor, the methodcomprising: receiving an observed dataset having input predictors andmultivariate responses; determining latent response variables based onthe input predictors and the multivariate responses wherein determiningincludes: selecting latent response variables; measuring dependenciesbetween multivariate responses; estimating coefficients that relateinput predictors to determined latent response variables; andcorrelating dependencies and coefficients with the latent responsevariables; generating a predictive distribution of probabilities for thelatent variables; mapping the probabilities to multivariate responses,generate a predictive distribution of probabilities for the multivariateresponses; and determining at least one optimized input from themultivariate responses.
 11. The method of claim 10 further comprising:(i) initializing a latent response variable vector with respect to aninput predictor and multivariate response vector; (ii) measuringdependency between a latent response variable and a multivariateresponse; (iii) estimating a coefficient that relates an input predictorto the latent response variable; (iv) correlating the dependency measureand the estimate coefficient with the latent response variable; and (v)selecting a latent response variable.
 12. The method of claim 11 whereinsteps (ii)-(v) are repeated until convergence.
 13. The method of claim10 wherein the dependencies are measured by creating a covariancematrix.
 14. The method of claim 10 wherein the wherein the multivariateresponses are one of multivariate binary responses and multivariatecategorical responses.
 15. A non-transitory computer readable storagemedium comprising a set of computer instructions executable by aprocessor for generating optimized multivariate responses, the computerinstructions configured to: receive an observed dataset having inputpredictors and multivariate responses; select latent response variables;measure dependencies between multivariate responses; estimatecoefficients that relate the input predictors to determined latentresponse variables; correlate dependencies and coefficients with thelatent response variables; generate a predictive distribution ofprobabilities for the latent variables; map the probabilities tomultivariate responses, generate a predictive distribution ofprobabilities for the multivariate responses; and determine at least oneoptimized input from the multivariate responses.
 16. The non-transitorycomputer readable storage medium as recited in claim 15 furtherincluding computer instructions configured to: (i) initialize a latentresponse variable vector with respect to an input predictor andmultivariate response vector; (ii) measure dependency between a latentresponse variable and a multivariate response; (iii) estimate acoefficient that relates an input predictor to the latent responsevariable; (iv) correlate the dependency measure and the estimatecoefficient with the latent response variable; and (v) select a latentresponse variable.
 17. The non-transitory computer readable storagemedium as recited in claim 16 further including computer instructionsconfigured to repeat steps (ii)-(v) until convergence.
 18. Thenon-transitory computer readable storage medium as recited in claim 15wherein the dependencies are measured by creating a covariance matrix.19. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium as recited inclaim 15 wherein the multivariate responses are one of multivariatebinary responses and multivariate categorical responses.